Grander criticisms - Penrose, Searle and Dreyfus
Next: Searle
Up: No Title
Previous: Criticisms
Back: to main list of student notes
I'll now talk about three ``ingredient X'' arguments, each of which
claims that the minds can do something that a Turing-equivalent computer
can't. These all take the form ``Humans can do A; but computers can't,
because they lack ingredient X''.
Such arguments are often inspired by comparing the the inflexibility of
conventional AI to human creativity, intuition or adaptability. Some
claim that connectionism may be able to go further than classical
symbolic AI. Others don't.
Summary:
- Searle. John Searle, professor of philosophy at Berkeley.
Known in AI for the Chinese Room argument, popularised (I think)
in a mid-80's Reith lectures . A = attain awareness; X = the right
stuff.
- Dreyfus. Hubert Dreyfus, professor of philosophy at
Berkeley. Known for a long history of criticisms against AI, starting in
1961. Known for his books What Computers Can't Do and (with his
brother) Mind over Machine. A = attain human-level skill; X =
holistic processing.
- Penrose. Roger Penrose, professor of mathematics at Oxford,
working on quantum physics and cosmology. Known in AI for his book The Emperor's New Mind. A = consciousness and behaviour; X = the right
stuff (particular quantum phenomena).
Next: Searle
Up: No Title
Previous: Criticisms
Back: to main list of student notes
Jocelyn Ireson-Paine
Wed Feb 14 23:51:11 GMT 1996